Health Care Revamp Drawing Near

I am trying to wrap my mind around the new health care legislation that is about to be passed by the senate. I keep hearing from people "You better be worried because when the government takes over health care they'll pay you a lot less." But I can't help but think this is a nowhere near a government takeover of health care. I would love input, to see if I am missing something here. From what I understand, if this senate bill passes soon, it will:

1. Require all Americans to have some type of health insurance (no public option will be offered by the government.)
2. Require all health insurance companies to take on every applicant regardless of pre-existing condition.
3. Make it illegal for a health insurance company to drop your coverage if you become ill.
4. Use higher taxes here and there to subsidize those in lower income group's health insurance plans.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a giant Christmas gift to health insurance companies? They have the threat of the IRS coming in and fining you $X,000.00 for not buying health insurance. How is this not good for health insurance? I can see a couple problems, health insurance companies that previously denied applicants who were high-risk will now be forced to insure them, paying extremely high medical bills, raising everybody's premiums. Those not able to afford the premiums, with or without the governmen't help, will be penalized by the IRS for not being able to buy health insurance. I'm not sure if I'm ready to throw my whole weight and support behind this bill, but I am happy that people who were previously unable to get health insurance will now be able to do so. Please feel free to post your own worries, concerns, or positives you can see coming from this. I am ready to learn.

Something nice to say

Well school is over for me now and out of sheer boredom I decided to put up a post on here. And since it seems most of what goes on here is debating issues, I decided to do something a little different. I'm going to post 3 things I like about republicans and 3 things I like about democrats.

Republicans first.

#1 Republicans remind me of my dad who scolds me after I spend my money on something stupid, telling me I need to spend less money than I earn. Usually I think it's annoying, but overall very, very smart. This is how I view republicans. Scolding the democrats for spending too much money on something stupid, like a 1.3 million dollar projector for a planeterium in Chicago. If there was no one to try to stop the democrats from spending like Paris Hilton in Hollywood, we'd be in even more serious trouble than we are now.

#2 I really like the republicans commitment to veterans and troops. These guys probably don't get enough praise and support. I've taken care of a lot of WWII veterans in my work (hospice), and I really admire these guys. Even the soldiers of today fighting in the middle east, I don't think I could do it, and I'm grateful there are people who will. I feel like republicans do a better job at showing support for the military and for veterans than democrats do.

#3 My favorite thing about republicans has to be their love of guns. As a huge hunter and outdoors lover I definitely fit in a million times better with NRA card carrying republicans than PETA card carrying democrats haha. With republicans in charge I know my hunting activites will always be legal and they'll always let me have my guns.

Now the Democrats

#1. My favorite thing about democrats is their tolerance and usual open-mindedness to other lifestyles. All the real democrats I have known have been very caring, open-minded, tolerant people who would never make anyone feel bad about the way they choose to live their life. They believe the way other people choose to lead their life is their business and their business alone. And that's the way I feel. I really like that open-minded attitude.

#2. Another thing I like about the democrats is their determination to help out the little guy. The poor single mom, or the poor student, or the working class family trying to make ends meet. I know the way they help them (usually by taxing the rich) is a controversial issue, but I still feel like they want to help these people out by food stamps, pell grants, medicaid, utilities assistance, etc.

#3. The last thing I want to mention about the democrats is their action on global warming. I am a huge believer that global warming is caused by us emitting greenhouse gases like CO2, N20, and CH4. I personally think we need to limit our greenhouse emissions. A few years ago the world took action by eliminating the use of CFC's (chlorofluoro hydrocarbons found in aerosol cans and refrigerators) and by so doing we stopped the progression of the ozone hole over Antartica. Now it's time for that same type of issue when it comes to global warming, and I feel like democrats are a little stronger overall on this issue than the republicans.

It is because of these reasons I'll probably stop claiming to be one party or the other. I really have things I like about both, but I probably fall somewhere in the middle leaning left a slight majority of the time. I'd invite whoever wants to to maybe offer what you like or admire about one, both or other parties. I just get bored reading the news all day and want to hear what the people on this blog think about it.

A story that tugged at my heartstrings

We have already established that adultery is a bipartisan phenomenom, well I have found another one. An extreme dislike for the BCS. This story today in the USA today tugged at my heartstrings, and gives me a little hope.

A House subcommittee approved legislation Wednesday aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine a national champion, over the objections of some lawmakers who said Congress had more pressing matters.
The bill, which faces long odds of becoming law, would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I football game as a national championship unless that title contest is the result of a playoff.
The measure passed by voice vote in a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee, with one audible "no," from Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga. "With all due respect, I really think we have more important things to spend our time on," Barrow said before the vote, although he stressed he didn't like the current Bowl Championship Series, either.
The bill's sponsor, GOP Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, said the BCS system is unfair and won't change unless prompted by Congress.
The vote came three days after the BCS selections were announced, including the Jan. 7 national title game between No. 1 Alabama and No. 2 Texas.
The measure moves to the full House Energy and Commerce Committee.
In a statement before the vote, BCS executive director Bill Hancock said, "With all the serious matters facing our country, surely Congress has more important issues than spending taxpayer money to dictate how college football is played."

I think we can decipher between true sports fans and those who don't care in congress. What do you guys think? Should congress take action against the BCS? Or should they focus on just health care and the war? I like what the subcommittee chairman, Rep. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat who co-sponsored the bill, said, "We can walk and chew gum at the same time." Last year, Texas, USC, and Utah were all cheated out of a shot at the national title, and millions of dollars for their program. College football is the only system in the world where a champion is not determined by a playoff. Is congress overstepping its bounds? My response: I don't care!

The church & Libs

Something has always baffled me. If you're a member of the church, how in the world are you liberal? I mean, the church is comprised of VERY conservative values and principles. Please explain this to me. I'm at a loss.

Afghan War Speech Follow-Up

That last post reminded me of this Daily Show clip which is just hilarious, particularly the revised speeches at the end (FF to 8:00 if you just want to see that)

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-2-2009/30-000

[This is Devin. I took the video off because it was too long and was bogging the site down a little too much. I'm fine with posting videos, but in the future, if the video you want to post is more than 2-3 minutes long, either create a hyperlink or include the link so we can copy and paste to go watch the video on someone else's site instead.]

Now everybody's happy lol

The War in Afghanistan

Holla Atchya! My name is David Wallace Bennett and I have recently been invited to comment on Our Political Ramblings, an invitation I accepted with glee. You may find my posts and comments to be a bit jocular at times, but hopefully I'll have something of value to add, on occasion. I grew up in Massachusetts and currently attend school in Utah.
I have been thinking heavily about the War in Afghanistan this week (I have been pondering the past seven days, not thinking exclusively about the happenings of the war that transpired during this week, peradventure you were confused) and I have been reading the New York Times, specifically in regards to President Obama's speech. While my opinions are still in the developmental phase (likened unto dough that has yet to rise, but is still malleable)- I do have some thoughts.
#1) The war in Afghanistan will not be won militaristically. Like the Gadianton Robbers of olden days (are you people LDS?) the Taliban may die out only to return again. Their extreme ideas and intense hatred will just resurface after the US declares the 'Mission Accomplished.' They are not like the Tamil Tigers with a finite location and limited members. I agree that we can weaken their forces and destroy their top commanders, but unlike Nazi Germany they cannot be entirely annihilated.

More Thoughts of the day

In response to some previous conservative quotes, here are a couple of liberal ones I enjoyed.

1st, from Dave Barry, a humor-based newspaper columnist.

The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club.

2nd, from JFK, no introduction needed:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." [September 14, 1960]

3rd and last, Winston Churchill:

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.

And so Jeff and Devin I've concluded you either have no heart, or just aged right past your 20's. Just kidding guys.

Thoughts of the Day

Again, brought to you by my one of my favorite economists and social commentators, Thomas Sowell. These should spark some interesting and lively debate. Note: they are intentionally random and are not meant to be read together in context. Comment on them individually if you'd like.

"Sometimes we seem like people on a pleasure boat drifting down the Niagara river, unaware that there are waterfalls up ahead. I don't know what people think is going to happen when a nation that already sponsors international terrorism has nuclear bombs to give to terrorists around the world."

"Internationally, the law of the jungle ultimately prevails, despite pious talk about "the international community" and "world opinion," or the pompous and corrupt farce of the United Nations."

"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about "fairness" and "social justice," what is your "fair share" of what someone else has worked for?"

Top 3 Political Turkeys

In honor of Thanksgiving, I thought it would be fun for everyone to list their top 3 political turkeys of 2009. So in the comments, list 3 people (or groups), and why they made your "political turkey" list. Here's my top three (or 4), in ascending order:

3. Mark Sanford/Sarah Palin

What? 2 Republicans made Devin's list? Yes folks, that's right. Gov. Mark Sanford is a no-brainer. His political star burned out just about as quick as it caught fire. While lying to his staff earlier this summer about going on a supposed hike on the Appalachian trail, Sanford really was meeting up with his Argentine "soul mate." Sanford walked out on his wife, his four sons, and his state. Sadly, it seems like sex scandals are the only bipartisan phenomena in politics these days.

While she has stayed true to her husband and family, Palin makes my list for quitting right in the middle of her term and for her incredibly embarrassing exit press conference. I think this move will come back to haunt her if she decides to throw her hat in the ring for 2012. I like Palin, but she needs to spend less time selling books, magazine covers, doing interviews, and playing the victim, and more time sharpening her political teeth - something a governor of a state does.

2. Nancy Pelosi

Ah yes, Queen Nancy, Speaker of the House. She makes the list for breaking her promise to post huge spending initiatives online like the so-called stimulus package and now the health care reform bill at least 72 hours before voting to give not only the public time to read it, but those who actually vote on it as well! She also makes the list for accusing the CIA of lying to her and actually getting away with that kind of an accusation with no consequences or investigations. I wouldn't be surprised if she made Joe Biden's list for jumping up and down like a jack-in-the-box everytime Obama delivers a "prime time" speech either!

1. Barack Hussein Obama

Mmmm, mmmm, mmmmm. My reasons for putting him #1 on this list are well-documented on this blog. You name it, anything from the endless campaign promises broken (I don't feel that betrayed - I didn't vote for him), to cramming unpopular policies down our throats, to tripling the national deficit, to incessantly hijacking the airwaves and tv channels, to repeatedly bowing to foreign rulers, to nationalizing the auto industry, to leaving out troops and generals hanging on Afghanistan, to arguing with dictionaries about definitions, to perpetuating the "too big to fail" lie, and the list goes on and on. While there have been some decisions he's made that I'm ok with, they have been very few and far between. 2012 can't come soon enough!

Happy Thanksgiving everybody.

Why All the Craziness?

This was old but I thought it was an interesting interview.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

So what do you guys think? Are all the so-called "tea-baggers" right to be afraid of "losing their country" or is it just extremist conspiracy theories from "divisive" figures?

Alice Holder

I can't help myself.

1. Holder wants KSM tried in Federal District Court

2. To restore our image in the world as just and fair and open

3. By affording KSM the rights of any criminal defendant in an Article III court

4. Including the presumption of innocence

5. But without even the possible risk of an acquittal

6. Because the evidence is so strong and the prosecutors so wonderful that

7. "Failure is not an option."

Way to achieve your goal, Holder!

The world probably already loves our Wonderland justice:

"Sentence first. Verdict later."

Eric Holder Gets Owned

The Congressional hot seat completely melted the Attorney General Eric Holder today. Asked to defend his moronic, unprecedented, nonsensical, and reckless decision to try the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) in a NY federal court as if he were a garden-variety criminal, Holder uh, well, he umm, uh, well, watch for yourself:



Andy McCarthy, a former U.S. Attorney who knows a thing or two about this topic (he successfully prosecuted the Blind Sheik in the aftermath of the WTC bombings) responded to Holder's performance in front of the Committee today:

"What made the United States most vulnerable in the Nineties was our enemies' perception that they were at war and we were not. They gave us bombs and death, we gave them rights. That encouraged them to attack us more often and more audaciously — which is exactly what they did. If we are at war, and the Attorney General said this morning that we are, we have to treat it like a war. Pressed by Sen. Graham, the AG could not name a single time when, during war, we captured an enemy combatant outside the U.S. and brought him into the United States for a civilian trial — vesting him with all the rights of an American citizen. That's because that hasn't happened. That's not how you treat wartime enemies.

Further, if we are going to have military commissions at all (and Holder says we will continue to have them), it makes no sense to transfer the worst war criminals to the civilian system. Doing so tells the enemy that they will get more rights if they mass-murder civilians."

This decision is wrong on so many levels, and I would invite anyone who reads this who thinks this is a smart move to try and do a better job defending it than the AG himself did today.

Stimulus Fantasy Land

I had to laugh (to keep from crying) when I saw the title of this ABC News article: "Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts that Don't Exist." Everyone knows that the administration is falling all over itself trying to further the facade that the "stimulus" package has created or saved tens of thousands of jobs, a position that becomes harder to defend now that the unemployment rate has surpassed 10% and continues to climb. Unsurprisingly, it is well-documented that the numbers on recovery.org for jobs "created or saved" have been wildly inflated and over-exaggerated. But the government has one-upped itself, citing these 'created or saved' stats (borderline fantasy in their own right) in fantasy congressional districts to drum up support for the failed spendulus package on recovery.org.

This has rubbed powerful democrats on the Hill the wrong way. Rep. David Obey, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, had this to say: "The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes."

You want to know the saddest part of this whole story? A taxpayer-funded grant of $18 million was given to fund recovery.org. I'm thrilled to know taxpayer dollars are being spent to perpetuate "waste, fraud, and abuse." And we want these guys to run our health care system?

On Hasan, Conclusions, and Political Correctness

For those who have been living in a cave: Last Thursday, a Muslim-American named Major Nidal Malik Hasan *allegedly* stood up on a desk at Fort Hood, TX, bowed his head, said "Allah Akbar" ("God is great" in Arabic), before firing off more than 100 rounds, murdering 12 soldiers, 1 civilian, and sending 28 others to the hospital. The emerging details of this tragic terrorist act, largely reported by the British press, have been difficult for me to swallow . . .

It's been reported that Hasan reached out to Al-Qaeda recruiters as many as 20 times; vociferously opposed the war; had close contact with a radical Anti-American cleric who has since praised Hasan as a hero; saw the current war not as one on terror, but a war on Islam; and gave radical Power Point lectures (at Walter Reed Hospital for crying out loud!) urging the audience to "fight those who do not believe in Allah;" that the "infidels should have boiling oil poured down their throats," and then "be lit on fire," and the list of red flags continues.

As shocking as these facts may seem, I am even more shocked to hear the mainstream media sympathize with Hasan and apologize for his actions - apparently hoping to ward off the inevitable anti-Muslim backlash from "the Right Wing hate machine." MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked: "so he tried to contact Al Qaeda - is that the point at which you say 'ok, this guy's dangerous?' It's not a crime to contact Al Qeada is it?" Others have said that it's "tragic" the Hasan was a Muslim. You hear that he was just a "stressed-out nut job" who was not a religious fanatic. Major news outlets initially did not even want to report Hasan's name. Janet Napolitano, the DHS Secretary, has promised to devote resources to "prevent [Muslims] from being painted with a broad brush."

Ironically, President Obama warned all of us to "not jump to conclusions." Hmmmm, sounds like "do as I say, not as I do." Didn't he hastily conclude that the Cambridge Police Dept. "acted stupidly" when a white cop arrested his black, elitist, college professor friend, and then had to awkwardly patch things up with the beer summit fiasco? Isn't that what he did immediately after the recent murder of the abortion doctor in Kansas, when he said "I am shocked and outraged at the murder of Doctor Tiller." The fact is this: Obama has no problems "jumping to conclusions" if an abortion doctor gets murdered, or an elite African-American Harvard Prof falls victim to what he concludes is racial profiling, but if a Muslim jihadist commits an act of terrorism, gunning down 13 people at an American Army Base, he is reticent, not wanting us to connect the dots. Coincidence?

Am I saying Obama is a Muslim terrorist? NO. Are all Muslims violent jihadists, hell-bent on killing innocent Americans? OF COURSE NOT. Do I have problems with peaceful Muslims serving in our military? NOPE. It is no secret that Obama is desperately trying to "repair" U.S. - Muslim relations, so I'm not the least bit surprised at his handling of the Fort Hood massacre. To his credit, I did appreciate his comments at the memorial service, "No just and loving God looks at these acts with approval." Well said, but notice that he is just implicitly admitting that these acts were indeed religiously motivated.

The main point I wanted to drive home is about political correctness. In a post-911 America, Muslims need not be wrongly targeted, profiled, or linked to terrorism. However, this does NOT mean that people at the Pentagon, FBI, or any other intelligence agency should simply look the other way, cross their fingers, knock on wood, and indulge a Muslim American who is simultaneously serving as an Army psychiatrist and ACTIVELY REACHING OUT TO AL-QAEDA!! It seems that fear of being politically incorrect or facing a frivolous lawsuit kept the higher-ups from discharging this ticking time bomb, even though they apparently knew about the red flags. 13 people are now dead. All I'm saying is that protecting American lives should trump political correctness. Talk about a double tragedy. Unbelievable. . . but hey, I don't want to "jump to any conclusions."

Governor Races

Take the poll above, and explain yourself in the comments.

Government Health Care and Roe v. Wade Don't Jibe

A necessary result of any of the major health care bills passing will be an unprecedented access to our private medical records on the part of the federal government. Surprisingly, this gross invasion of our privacy has received little press. The Dems are upset that they can't get a public option to stay on the table, and the GOP is upset that they can't get significant tort reform provisions in the bills.

But the privacy issue will become significant the moment the legislation passes because its Constitutionality will be challenged. Queen Pelosi condescendingly disregarded a challenge to the legality of the insurance mandate by predictably citing the federal government's responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. This tired argument has been used successfully to justify pretty much anything the feds fancy. A challenge to this will barely be considered before it is laughingly tossed aside by the Supreme Court.

No no. This challenge will come in a different form.

Rewind 36 years. The U. S. Supreme Court made what can arguably called the most controversial judgment in the history of our nation in Roe v. Wade. The decision struck down a Texas abortion law as unconstitutional. It did so on the grounds of the implied "right to privacy" the mother has, derived specifically from the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, the federal government decided that what a person does with her body, and her medical decisions, are between her and her doctor, and the government has no right to meddle in these affairs.

Uh oh.

So, the legislation will be challenged. Either the court will be forced to stand by Roe v. Wade and declare the health care bill unconstitutional, or it will uphold the bill and overturn Roe v. Wade. Is there any other option?

I've got one! This is going to sound a little crazy, but what if we actually function like a republic, and leave these matters to the states? What a novel idea! How constitutionally sound! As the good folks at the Tenth Amendment Center pointed out, "In a truly federal government, Massachusetts could allow same-sex marriages and bar the Ten Commandments from public displays. In a truly federal government, Alabama could display the Ten Commandments in state courtrooms and outlaw same-sex marriages."

Taking issues of this nature from the federal arena and placing them in the hands of the states where they belong is the best way to make the voice of the people heard. Progressives may want to argue that a 7-to-2 court decision made in a stuffy chamber in Washington, D. C. 36 years ago is the proper way to decide what a woman in Utah does with her baby, but I say let the people govern themselves in their own states, and let the federal government do what we told it to do when we created it and ratified our Founding Document.

What to do in Afghanistan?

This is a question I definitely don't have the answer for. Tonight on NPR here in Utah there was a public debate (it's usually broadcast from some Ivy League school) titled "The War in Afghanistan is unwinnable and we should withdraw troops immediately." I mean that wasn't the exact title, but it was something like that. I only caught part of it, but one of the general's that was in support of the war argued that stability in Afghanistan with both the Taliban and Al-Qaida not in control makes for a safer America. Just when he had me convinced, the other side responded "How many Americans are we going to sacrifice for Hamid Karzhai's government?" (Sorry if I spell some of this stuff wrong, but you know who I'm talking about.) I thought that was also a good point, with the election fraud recently and what not. Right now I think I'm leaning toward it's not worth it. But then part of me says that we can't let Bin Laden, Al-Quaida, and the Taliban win. But when I ask myself, would I be willing to sacrifice my own life for this cause, the answer is definitely not. So for me, I feel like this war is turning into a modern-day Vietnam. How does everyone else feel about it?

Thought of the Day

Brought to you by Thomas Sowell:

"When politicians propose some hugely expensive new program and are asked how the government is going to pay for it, a standard ploy over the years has been to claim that they will pay for it by eliminating "waste, fraud and abuse." At a recent town hall meeting, a citizen raised the obvious question: If you can do that, why haven't you done it already?"

SNL, Maher, and Stewart Taking Jabs at Obama??

You know things aren't all rosy for Obama when SNL, Bill Maher, and Jon Stewart are making him the butt of their jokes. Check it out:



So what's Obama's counterpunch? I say that, like Sarah Palin, go on SNL and prove that you are capable of making fun of yourself. Will that happen? Not a chance - a man too proud to admit that an individual mandate for health care is a tax, even when the dictionary says otherwise, will definitely be too proud to make fun of himself on SNL. What's really hilarious is that CNN did a "fact check" segment for the skit - yeah, they actually fact checked an SNL skit!

The folks on SNL aren't the only ones making this point. So are heavy hitting liberals Bill Maher and Jon Stewart.

Maher: "You don't have to be on television every minute of every day. You're the President, not a rerun of 'Law and Order.' TV stars are too worried about being popular and too worried about being renewed. You're skinny and in a hurry and in love with a nice lady, but so is Lindsay Lohan. And just like Lindsay, we see your name in the paper a lot but we're kind of wondering when you are actually going to do something."

Stewart: "I know you have a lot on your desk plate. But as a think man who smokes, you may not understand the concept. All that stuff you've been putting on your plate, it's chow time, brother. That's how you get things off your plate."

So what do you guys think? Is there some truth to the SNL skit and these quotes? And what of the bungled lobbying trip to Copenhagen for Chicago 2016? I'm surprised no one has said anything about that yet.

Fuzzy Med Math?

I just read that the CBO estimated the Sen Finance Committee health reform bill would cost $829 billion (Woo hoo! JUST that much!) over 10 years.
It also will reduce the deficit by $81 billion in 10 years.
I wish our family could celebrate when we spend $8,000 in order to save $800.

"Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!"

Though it's always fun to listen to Pink Floyd anyway, I also feel like everyone would do well to remember the song Another Brick in the Wall with everything that's been going on lately. I assure you this isn't another joke, just read the words:

"We dont need no education.
We dont need no thought control.
No dark sarcasm in the classroom.
Teacher, leave those kids alone.
Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!
All in all its just another brick in the wall.
All in all youre just another brick in the wall."

Isn't it sad our education system needs Pink Floyd to keep them in line?! For those who don't know what I'm talking about here's there are two frightening recent events I'm thinking of in particular:

This video has recently been shown to elementary kids in school throughout the country:



I know it's kinda long, but most of it is either grossly misleading or totally full of crap. But even if it were accurate, would it be proper to schow it to little kids IN SCHOOL? Do we really expect elementary kids to have an informed opinion about it?

Here's another one:



Again, this is in an elementary school! Whoever thought this kind of thing would happen in America? Ridiculous.

What I Learned Today at School

Today my Business Organizations prof was out of town. Instead of canceling class to make it up later - what usually happens - we had to go to class and watch a 2.5 hour Canadian documentary, "The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power." To minimize the temptation to sluff, a class roll was passed around, and our prof informed us earlier to expect a weighty question on our final regarding the film content. Here is what I learned:

"Most" Corporations are, among other things . . . (notice the quotation marks)

"slave owners, sharks, master exploiters, reckless, cancer-spreaders, doom machines [my personal favorite], liars, criminals, psychopaths, unaccountable tyrants, profit hungry swine, monsters, polluters, predators, plunderers, manipulators, skull collectors, invaders, imperialists, brain washers, Fascist Nazis, responsible for Hitler's rise to power [mainly IBM and Coca-Cola], and thus complicit in the Holocaust."

Who knew? Thank you Joel Bakan, Micheal Moore and friends, for enlightening me today.

The Royal "We"?

I listened to part of Pres. Obama's speech to the U.N. General Assembly this morning. He said many things I agree with, some I did not. The speech revealed a strategy behind some of his earlier decisions / actions that made no sense otherwise. I was generally reinforced in my impression that we have a very intelligent and capable head of state.

What gnawed at me, though, was his use of the first person throughout the speech. "MY first day in office I . . . " signed an order" ending torture by the U.S. "I ordered the closure" of Gitmo. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. There seems to be no recognition of his position in this. Barack Obama didn't do anything. The President of the United States, and therefore the government of the United States, did.

It got worse (in my probably-paranoid view). When referring to the United States, more often than not, Pres. Obama repeatedly used the phrase "MY country." Now the United States is my country, too, and there is nothing evil about singing the tune "This Is My Country." But given his position as chief executive, it would have been more appropriate to say "the U.S." or "the United States" or "this country" (in context) or "America" (he used the phrase anti-American" so why not "America?"). I can't imagine George Washington referring to America in a speech to foreign heads of state as "my country" as it lacks humility, possibly conveying the impression that the chief executive owns, or at least possesses, the country.

So when Pres Obama started using the first person plural, I started hearing the language of royalty. Even when the king stands alone, he refers to himself as "us." What the queen owns is "ours." A royal person does not say "I believe" or "I decree." It is "We believe" and "We decree." If you listen to the speech in this light, you may find it disturbing, whether you agree with the substance of his speech or not.

I think humility is a scarce commodity among national politicians. But the more experienced ones do a better job of putting on the pretense. Yes, I prefer pretended humility to unvarnished conceit.

Avoiding the Word "Tax" at All Costs

I hesitated to post about this because I know some readers don't appreciate negative exposure to the Pres, but I just couldn't pass this up. Pres. Obama has a very interesting definition of what a "tax" is, and is not. Apparently, a health care tax is not a tax if he thinks the tax is for your own good. The following is an excerpt from a WSJ opinion article, with emphasis added:

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Mr. Obama was asked by host George Stephanopoulos about the "individual mandate." Under Max Baucus's Senate bill that Mr. Obama supports, everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year. Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when "the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't [buy insurance]. . . . How is that not a tax?"

"Well, hold on a second, George," Mr. Obama replied. "Here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average—our families—in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's . . ."

"That may be," Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, "but it's still a tax increase." (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that's another subject.)

Mr. Obama: "No. That's not true, George. The—for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore . . ." In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy—don't call it a tax—is for your own good.

Mr. Stephanopoulos tried again: "But it may be fair, it may be good public policy—"

Mr. Obama: "No, but—but, George, you—you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."

"I don't think I'm making it up," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. He then had the temerity to challenge the Philologist in Chief, with an assist from Merriam-Webster. He cited that dictionary's definition of "tax"—"a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."

Mr. Obama: "George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. . . ."

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase."

Mr. Obama: "My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but . . ."

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "But you reject that it's a tax increase?"

Mr. Obama: "I absolutely reject that notion."

Anyone have any thoughts on this? My personal opinion is that he is trying way too hard to make good on one of his very popular campaign promises - that if you made less than 200K per year (or whatever it was), you would not see your taxes go up "one dime." Does Obama really think people believe his side in this interview, with the dictionary and common sense on the other side? Isn't it worse that he had to be cornered like this, on national TV, and still deny the obvious rather than own up to it, admit that it is clearly a tax, but mitigate the damage by explaining why he thinks it is still necessary? It's only one tiny little three letter word, no big deal!

The saddest, most embarrassing part of the interview for Obama was when he first accused George of "making up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase," Then, when George pulls out the dictionary, as if to say, "These aren't my words, I'm not making this language up," Obama then accuses him of "stretching a little bit." Clearly, this interview showed the nation that it was President Obama, not George, who was "stretching" by "making up that language" and "deciding that that's [not] called a tax increase."

What's your opinion?

Since we have a lot of legally minded people that read this, I wanted to get your opinion on this particular case out of Arizona. Here's a short synopsis of the case.


Arizona parents sue over kids' bath pictures
September 17th, 2009 @ 6:05pm
PHOENIX (AP) - An Arizona couple accused of sexual abuse after taking bath-time photos of their children and then trying to have them developed at Walmart are suing the state and the retail giant.
Lisa and Anthony "A.J." Demaree's three young daughters were taken away by Arizona Child Protective Services last fall when a Walmart employee found partially nude pictures of the girls on a camera memory stick taken to the store for processing, according to the suit.
The Peoria couple's attorney said Walmart turned the photos over to police and the Demarees were not allowed to see their children for several days and didn't regain custody for a month while the state investigated.
Neither parent was charged with sexual abuse and they regained custody of their children _ then ages 1 1/2, 4 and 5 _ but the Demarees claim the incident inflicted lasting harm.
The couple is seeking undetermined monetary damages from both Walmart and the state and have requested a jury trial.
Richard Treon, the lawyer for the Demarees, said the images of the girls were part of a group of 144 photographs taken mostly during the family's vacation in San Diego.
There were seven to eight bath- and playtime photos of the girls that showed a "portion or outline or genitalia."
"There was nothing sexual about it," Treon said. "This is a parent's worst nightmare."
One lawsuit names Arizona, Peoria and the state Attorney General's Office as defendants, claiming that employees from each defamed them by telling friends, family members and co-workers that they had "sexually abused" their children by taking pornographic pictures of them.
A second lawsuit, naming Walmart as the defendant, says the company is at fault for not telling Anthony Demaree that it had an "unsuitable print policy" and could decide to turn any photos over to law enforcement.
Calls to Arkansas-based Walmart and officials from Peoria and Arizona seeking comment on the suits were not immediately returned Thursday.

So what do you think? Should the parents be registered as sex offenders? Is America sue happy? Do these parents deserve compensation for their "loss"? I'm interested in what everyone thinks, because I honestly don't quite know what to think.

My Unorthodox Take on Joe Wilson

This was originally intended as a comment on the previous posting, but given its length I think it’s more appropriate as a separate posting. I know you’re all probably sick of all my bloviating by now, but I feel the length is necessary to justify my position in this instance, since, I'm probably the only conservative/republican—with the only exception I know of being Ann Coulter—that actually agrees with Joe Wilson on this one, albeit somewhat reluctantly. I guess I'm hoping that given my position, you all will be curious to find out WHY I would even bother sticking up for Joe Wilson...assuming you don't already think I've simply lost my mind... :)

First a disclaimer: considered in isolation, I would normally agree that this was inappropriate. That is, generally speaking it's not polite to interrupt someone and call them a liar...obviously.

That said, however, I think that IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, it was justified for numerous reasons.

The first and obvious point to anyone who is informed or at least heard Wilson’s explanation is this: Obama really WAS lying. Sorry dad, but I don't think this was merely political spin or parsing hairs like we’re accustomed to from our politicians. Obama’s claim (along with many others in this propaganda speech) was absolutely false. Or if you don’t agree on that point, there are numerous other examples to choose from in the speech. In fact, Rush Limbaugh feels strongly enough about it to say that Obama lied THE WHOLE TIME. So there’s plenty to go on here, if not the one Joe Wilson spotted.

Now this is the point where, I believe, most people would bring up the point about “respecting the OFFICE of the President,” suggesting that he shouldn’t have to justify his points in the middle of a speech to a “disrespectful heckler” (or something along those lines). I take issue with that for three reasons: first, it’s not just up to Americans to respect the President NO MATTER WHAT—rather the President has to EARN our respect by living up to the public trust;—second, you can’t condemn Wilson’s response without condemning audience participation in general; and third, the political arena is often governed by a separate set of rule where teleological (I’ll explain the concept later) concerns often override common standards of decency.

For those who don’t agree with me on the first point, I would make mention of another incident involving a lying President …which, if memory serves me, resulted in IMPEACHMENT. And the lie at issue merely involved the man’s personal life, yet many people felt that lying about that meant he no longer deserved to lead us. The question I’m asking, then, is why lies over a LIFE AND DEATH issue are considered less important than lies over an affair?

To be fair, some would claim there’s a distinction between following legitimate political process (impeachment) and interrupting the President during a speech. In other words, one could argue that impeaching the President wasn’t DISRESPECTFUL in the same way Wilson’s interruption was. I can accept that, and I shall address that concern later. For the time being my point is simply that there’s nothing wrong with expecting a certain level of decency and professionalism from our President (and all elected officials, for that matter), and that honesty OBVIOUSLY falls under that umbrella. My argument suggests such behavior effectively UNDOES the claim to automatic respect afforded to the person by virtue of the office itself…otherwise it would just be too easy for the President to take advantage of our respect (look how Obama’s already been treating “naysayers” and “dissenters”).

Now I imagine there are some who don’t agree with Clinton’s impeachment, who could therefore consistently say “it wasn’t right then, and it isn’t right now; impeaching Clinton was no more justified than interrupting Obama.” But this is where my second point comes in (well it’s actually Ann Coulter’s point, but I agree with it anyway): audience participation wasn’t exactly discouraged in this speech. Anyone who watched it had to notice that half the room (obviously the Democrats) gave standing ovations repeatedly throughout the whole thing. So this wasn’t exactly a low key speech where everyone felt compelled to remain silent to “respect” the President. On the contrary, cheering was actually ENCOURAGED, not to mention obviously appreciated by Obama himself (I wonder if he even could give a speech without people cheering him on the whole time). So how, then, can you cut off the other half of the room (the Republicans) if they don’t share the same sentiment? If people who agree can cheer, then why can’t others boo if they don’t? Isn’t that an obvious double-standard? I’m sorry, but once you open the door for cheers, then you can’t automatically expect not to be booed: you just can’t have it both ways. If those who complain by saying “this isn’t the House of Commons” were honest, they would have an equal complaint with the cheering democrats as they did with Joe Wilson. Though I suppose some could potentially draw a distinction between booing and Wilson’s interruption, I would submit that they’ve never been to any kind of sporting event—the two go hand in hand, I’m afraid.

Here's the clip in case I didn't explain it clearly:



Now I know there are many idealists (no offense: I often proudly consider myself an idealist) out there who are still convinced that you can’t fight evil with evil—so to speak—and therefore Wilson should have kept his cool EVEN IF Obama deserved what he got. My response to that sentiment is this: you also have to remember that this is politics, and typical behavioral guidelines don’t always harmonize with our normal moral standards (in certain cases). What I’m alluding to is teleology, which is the idea that sometimes “the end justifies the means.” Though this is typically used as an excuse to justify something morally questionable (otherwise the “means” would need no justification in the first place), it isn’t always a bad thing in practical terms, such as instances involving choosing the “lesser of two evils,” for example, which is something we see ALL THE TIME in politics.

So how does that apply here, then? Earlier I alluded to the extremely important nature of this particular issue, since it literally involves matters of life and death. In a literal sense, OUR VERY LIVES are the “ends” at issue, so the proper (teleological) question to ask is this: what “means” would I be justified in employing in order to SAVE MY OWN LIFE (the “end,” in this case)? Though the question would require serious philosophical discussion to adequately answer, the immediate point is that framing it in THESE terms is CONSIDERABLY different than simply saying “Joe Wilson’s interruption was disrespectful to the President.” If, in other words, I change that statement to “Joe Wilson’s interruption was disrespectful to the President EVEN IF IT SAVES OUR LIVES,” then all of a sudden we’re having an ENTIRELY different discussion. Indeed, I doubt there’s ANYBODY out there who would have the audacity to make the second claim (assuming, of course, they believed the interruption actually could change the eventual outcome).

Though the second statement admittedly could not be proven, even after the fact, I think one can reasonably conclude that it did have at least SOME effect. To illustrate, let’s compare Wilson’s interruption to the Republican response: which has gotten more attention? Aside from casual mention at the end of articles/stories involving the President’s speech, I don’t think ANYBODY is talking about what was said in the Republican response. In fact, I don’t even remember the guy’s name, nor do I remember much of what he said. Joe Wilson, on the other hand, I remember, and so does most of the country, because WE’RE STILL TALKING ABOUT HIM. It really is like the adage: “bad publicity is still publicity.” Few things in American politics are as powerful as a good old-fashioned controversy, because—I would argue—people are naturally fascinated with conflict. Though most would look at that as a negative thing—I’m not saying it isn’t, don’t get me wrong—it is, nevertheless, a VERY powerful tool. Even though most people aren’t very happy with Joe Wilson right now, I still think this was probably THE BEST MOVE OF HIS CAREER: now he’s a significant national figure. I almost wonder whether he did it ANTICIPATING all this controversy and exposure...

How Old are We?

For those who didn't watch last night, Pres. Obama was rudely interrupted during his health care address to Congress. Republican Rep. Joe Wilson shouted "you lie!" when Obama was explaining that illegal immigrants will not be covered under his proposals. I think the childish outburst was totally uncalled for and disrespectful. He rightly issued an apology afterward, saying that he regretted doing that, and that his emotions got the better of him. I also thought that those little papers many Republicans kept waving around were stupid and childish too. It gave me a flashback to my senior year of high school when we played Mountain Crest at their gym in basketball. Their whole student section held up newspapers in front of their faces while we ran onto the court for starting lineups. You'd hope that members of Congress have matured a little since high school.

However, what irritates me is when my liberal classmates and professors pretend that this sort of thing is unprecedented - How dare the minority party disrespect the President like this! My suspicions of a double standard were confirmed today when I saw the Drudge Report. Turns out that Pres. Bush was disrespected, heckled and loudly booed by Dems during his 2005 State of the Union address. So it seems the Dems can't take what they dish out. Does that make it ok for Republicans to retaliate? NO. Wouldn't it be nice if BOTH parties would be mature enough to refrain from disrespecting the President during an address. Or am I asking too much?

I Pledge Allegiance to . . . Obama?

President Obama is scheduled to address all grade-schoolers next week, and many conservatives are skeptical, worried, and some are even planning on keeping their kids home that day - fearing a subtle liberal "indoctrination" or "brainwashing" session. For the record, I think that's going overboard. According to the White House, this will not be a liberal policy speech, but more of a "do good, stay in school, work hard, etc." speech. If that will be the case, I don't have a problem with it.

However, maybe some of those conservatives have a reason to be a little worried. Last week, the Principal and the PTA of an elementary school in Farmington, UT decided to show a brief clip showing various Hollywood liberal celebrities "pledging" to do certain things to help the President and the world. Here it is:

I agree with most of the video. But to be honest, I found other parts to be creepy ("I pledge to serve Barack Obama"), gross ("I pledge to flush only after a deuce, and not a single"), blatantly political (advancing stem cell research, for example), weird (what is "the United funk of funkadelica?"), vague ("I pledge to be the change."), and flat-out liberal propaganda. During the movie, the principal actually turned to her assistant and said "Oops, I wish I would have seen this before. I don't think I would have shown it" and now has to apologize to parents whose first graders may put them on little guilt trips for using plastic instead of paper at the grocery store, flushing the toilet after urinating, buying bottled water, driving a non-hybrid car, and asking them what "21st century slavery" means, and what they can do to help stop it (I'm still scratching my head over that one).

By the way Demi Moore, "We the People" are not presidential servants. Our elected officials are called "public servants" for a reason - they serve us (or are supposed to, at least), not the other way around. Could you imagine the liberal uproar if Bush made a video like this? Keith Olberman's huge head would explode! Ha ha. Seriously though, if parents want to teach their young, impressionable kids these things at home, great! But keep this partisan stuff out of the public school system, or let parents know before you show it. What do you guys think?

To Lighten Things Up a Bit

Here's a short, faux news report documenting the most recent medical diagnosis of our fearless leader that will hopefully bring a smile to your face, no matter which side of the aisle you are on :)


White House Reveals Obama Is Bipolar, Has Entered Depressive Phase

And because I didn't know what "Asperger's Syndrome" was as it relates to Joe Biden, I had to look it up. According to Wikipedia, "people with it show significant difficulties in social interaction . . . Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and atypical use of language are frequently reported." Now it makes perfect sense, maybe the Onion is on to something . . . :)

(Our) Cash for Clunkers

Our government has come to the rescue yet again, paying (with our tax dollars) $3,500 - $4,500 per clunker for pre-approved new cars with better mileage. When 'Cash for Clunkers' (C4C) was passed, the $1 billion in funding was supposed to last until October, but only lasted one week. NO WAY - a 'free' government handout program going bankrupt? That never happens! So, true to form, the spin doctors in the liberal media and the liberal Congress equated popularity with success, and voted for an additional $2 billion to extend the program. You already know how I feel about this program, but I'll tell you anyway . . . :)

First - this reminds me of the billions spent to bailout homeowners on the brink of foreclosure. In this case, the auto companies - either bankrupt, owned by the government, or on the brink of collapse - needed a government bailout to boost slumping sales. Remember when Rick Santelli famously ranted: "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbors' mortgage? President Obama, are you listening?!" C4C is the same principle, but we're paying for other people's new ride instead of their house. I'm glad the government has spent a fraction of what it spent on the foreclosure rescue program, but it is the same nonsensical principle. Making auto companies dependent on taxpayer subsidies to sell cars only temporarily and artificially grows their bottom line (with our money), and merely postpones the pains of the recession.

Second - this intervention, like every other, will cause distortions in the market. For example, as the picture shows, the clunkers get crushed, removing them from the used car market. This will cause used car prices to rise (lower supply). And instead of crushing the car, could we not at least salvage the good, usable parts? What a waste! Oh I forgot, this is a government program. Also, in order to be a true stimulus, new demand must be created. C4C merely shifts current demand for cheap political points, detracting from next year's sales.

Third - Six of the top ten new cars are made by foreign companies: Honda, Toyota, or Hyundai. That's ok with me, they must be doing something right if consumers choose their products over the alternatives. But of the remaining four, three are made by GM (the other is the Ford Focus), which is now owned by the government. So yes, the government is actually 'stimulating' itself through C4C. How convenient!!

Fourth - If lawmakers wanted to pass C4C to help the poor (not hard to imagine given the popularity of tax hikes on the rich for handouts for the poor and middle class), it isn't really working. The average annual income of those participating in C4C is $57K/yr - only 4K less than the average annual income of new car purchasers.

Last - I can't believe I'm saying this, but John McCain actually had a pretty good point . . . he asked, "why not 'cash for refrigerators?' Or 'cash for lawnmowers?' Or anything else that catches the government's fancy?" C4C is a perfect illustration of what I said in my comment on the last post: "a Governmnet may at pleasure elevate one class and depress another; it may one day legislate exclusively for the farmer, the next for the mechanic, and the thid for the [auto] manufacturer, who all thus becomes the mere puppets of legislative cobbling and tinkering, instead of independent citizens, relying on their own resources for their prosperity." Today is the day of the auto manufacturers, who have certainly become puppets of this legislative tinkering. The benefits of this program are highly concentrated on the few, at the expense of the many. I'd prefer the federal government stop looting us to subsidize the auto companies, amounting to little more than corporate welfare, on our dime. What do you think? Is C4C a good idea, or a very bad use of taxpayer funds?

Broken Promises and Big Talk

Here's a little clip from a news story about Pres. Obama not ruling out raising taxes. In a recession.

During his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." But the simple reality remains that his ambitious overhaul of how Americans receive health care — promised without increasing the federal deficit — must be paid for.
"If we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it's going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform," Geithner said. "We're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."

At what point is China going to say "Okay U.S., we've lent you trillions of dollars, and now we want to be paid back." Our current economic model is just not sustainable and it worries me greatly. I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir right now, but this spending has gotten out of hand. Raising taxes in a recession just screams bad idea all over it for me anyway. I believe in some government action and help but what we're seeing now is way more than I'd like to see.

More on Health Care

So I think more information has come out about the new Obama Care, and I wanted to share some opinions about what I like and dislike. Here's part of a news article:

House Democrats on Tuesday rolled out a far-reaching $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans, with medical providers, employers and the wealthiest picking up most of the tab.
The federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties.
Health care overhaul is President Barack Obama's top domestic priority, and his goal is to slow rising costs and provide coverage to nearly 50 million uninsured Americans. Democratic leaders said they would push the measure through committee and toward a vote in the full House by month's end, while the pace of activity quickened on the other side of the Capitol.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he wanted floor debate to begin a week from Monday. Other officials said that timetable was likely to slip. Even so, it underscored a renewed sense of urgency.
The House legislation unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats would slow the growth of Medicare and Medicaid payments to medical providers. From big hospitals to solo physician practices, providers also would be held to account for quality care, not just ordering up tests and procedures. Insurance companies would be prohibited from denying coverage to the sick. The industry also would face stiff competition from a new government plan designed along the lines of Medicare.
The liberal-leaning plan lacked figures on total costs, but a House Democratic aide said the total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private calculations.
The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers' wages with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.
House leaders want to move quicklyWith Obama pressing Congress to act on health care this summer, House leaders want to move their bill quickly through three committees and to a floor vote before the August congressional recess. But a group of moderate and conservative Democrats has withheld support, and no Republican votes are expected. The House bill seemed unlikely to win broad backing in the Senate.
The House bill seemed unlikely to win broad backing in the Senate, where the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was expected to finish its version of the legislation Wednesday in what was looking to be a party-line vote. Another panel, the Senate Finance Committee, was striving to unveil a bill by the end of the week. But the outlook in the Senate remained uncertain.
Standing before a banner that read "Quality Affordable Care for the Middle Class," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called the moment "historic and transformative." The bill would provide "stability and peace of mind" by braking costs and guaranteeing coverage, she said.
"We are going to accomplish what many people felt wouldn't happen in our lifetime," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., one of the main sponsors. Obama issued a statement hailing the measure.
Speaking in Warren, Mich., where he was promoting new spending for community colleges, Obama anticipated a congressional confrontation over health care.
"There's going to be a major debate over the next three weeks," he said, deviating from his prepared text. "And don't be fooled by folks trying to scare you saying we can't change the health care system.We have no choice but to change the health care system because right now it's broken for too many Americans."
Separately, Obama spoke by telephone with Sen. Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican viewed as critical to the fate of bipartisan negotiations in the Senate.
Democrats said the income tax increase would apply only to the top 1.2 percent of households, those who earn about one-quarter of all income. The wealthiest 4 percent of small business owners would be among them. The tax would start at 1 percent for couples making $350,000 and individuals earning $280,000, ramp up to 1.5 percent above $500,000 of income, and jump to 5.4 percent for those earning above $1 million.
The tax would raise an estimated $544 billion over 10 years.

Things I like: Health care does need to be changed, and it's been largely ignored for a very long time. I have heard a lot of horror stories about people who could not afford coverage and then had some medical condition or accident hit them and they had no choice but to file for bankruptcy. So I applaud the democrats for taking on the issue. I also like how the new system will be a lot like that of France's with a couple of differences. In France everybody pays 10% and everyone is insured by the federal government to a basic level with option to purchase additional private health insurance. In this system only the rich pays for it. My feeling would be to tax some behaviors that lead to health problems much like the tobacco tax, say a junk food tax. I believe that would raise far more money than just taxing the rich and also place the burden more on the shoulders of the people that would benefit from the new system. I also like how people with preexisting conditions will now be able to get coverage.

Things I don't like: I don't feel very good about enforcing a penalty tax of $1,000 a year on people who elect not to get coverage. I don't like placing almost the entire burden of the poor's health care just on the wealthy. I don't like how fast they want to shove this through the system. I don't know about spending even more money during a recession. And I'm sure a lot of you have a lot more objections than that. And I'd like to hear about them. And if you can think of any positives at all I'd like to hear those too.

The Battle over Health Care Reform

I'll admit that I'm not well-versed on all the issues in this debate, but I know some of you are, so I wanted to get your comments and insights. Here is insight #1 I picked up from a co-worker who is an Iraqi War Vet:

We were discussing the topic of health care over lunch one day. Another co-worker asked him why he hopes Pres. Obama's health care reforms don't pass. He simply replied, "go spend a day at the VA Hospital and I guarantee you wouldn't hope the reforms pass either." He then outlined a long laundry list of the problems he's experienced firsthand that result when the government bureaucracy comes between doctors and their patients. It was a real (scary) eye-opener for me.

Insight #2: On ABC's "Prescription For America" program, completely unbiased as the name indicates, a neurologist really put Obama on the spot. He suggested that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public while they themselves are secure in the knowledge that if they or their loved ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it's not provided by insurance. The neurologist then asked Obama if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick, noting that various independent studies show that Obama's proposed "public option" would actually limit tests and treatments. Visibly flustered by the question, Obama refused to make the promise and quickly changed the subject. Ouch - I'm sure this didn't help the marketing campaign for Obamacare, especially coming off the heels of Obama's personal physician for 22 years, Dr. David Scheiner, coming out and saying, "I'm not sure he really understands what we face in primary care."

For my part, I'm naturally skeptical of a government takeover of anything (as you'll remember from reading my posts about GM), especially if it comes with a CBO-announced price tag of another 1.6 trillion over the next decade. I'm puzzled why so many believe that more money, higher taxes, and more government involvement in our lives will magically solve all of our problems. Throw more money and more government regulation at the problem, and it will go away. I'm not convinced that this is an effective approach. The patience of the public is growing thin. How many billions/trillions has the government spent trying to turn the economy around? Yet the unemployment rate continues to spike. While I realize there are problems with the health care status quo, things could be much worse . . .

Herding Cats

Last Thursday night I attended a meeting at Mt. Logan Middle School. About 150 people attended. It was sponsored by the "Independent Caucus" and included several speeches and presentations, generally designed to tap into dissatisfaction with the way things are going in the country.

While I was sitting in between two friends, I penned the following observation:

"Getting large numbers of people who believe in independence to unite in a common cause is like herding cats."

That occurred to me because each speaker, in turn, was admonishing people in the audience to get out and protect the Constitution and their rights against intrusion and interference. But when asked what specifically a person can or should do, they seemed stumped. To their credit, they did not say "Follow me blindly and help me throw off the yoke of despotism." But this dilemma is an organic obstacle to well-organized resistance to socialism. Those who oppose governmental control of their lives are by the same nature disinclined to commit their loyalty to any political organization.

Government Motors and the Law of Unintended Consequences

If anyone still reads this blog, you probably know GM is bankrupt, and after [another] 30 billion dollars down the drain, Obama has made sure that the federal government will be the majority shareholder when all is said and done. So what will the future hold? Here's a sneak peak. . .

Now that the government has its sought-after mechanism to coerce us into smaller, more fuel efficient hybrid cars, despite their weak demand and high prices, expect to be called 'unpatriotic' if you have the nerve to get behind the wheel of a gas-guzzling truck or SUV. Forgive the pun, but is there a better vehicle to kick-start the government's "enlightened" green energy policies than to nationalize the country's largest auto company? How will the government protect "our" investment (aka bailouts)? Here comes the parade of inevitables . . .

Declining sales of Chevy's and Hemi's will prompt tax breaks for their buyers and higher taxes for those who buy other brands. Then tariffs on imports will go up, and foreign factories in the U.S. will be subject to Value Added Taxes to subsidize unsold government cars, leading to a trade war. And because the federal government has no clue how to operate anything for a profit, the taxpayers will continue to subsidize the losses of Government Motors: tens of billions more coming in bailouts. And because the money supply is finite, the only way for GM to succeed in the long run will be if the government substantially reduces competition from foreign brands and jacks up gas taxes. Higher gas prices will then push Ford into bankruptcy (its profitable truck and SUV sales are keeping it afloat). Michael Moore is already on the war path, pushing for an additional $2 per gallon gas tax, and I'm not even kidding - check his website.

So can the Obama administration assume that GM consumers will remain loyal after the government takeover? Don't hold your breath. When your favorite restaurant comes under new ownership, and that ownership is notorious for serving bad food elsewhere, do you keep eating there? Maybe if you want food poisoning. I predict that many consumers have bought their last GM product. Why?

Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises put it this way: "The real bosses in the capitalist system are the consumers. By their buying and abstention of buying, they decide who should own the capital and run the plants. They determine what should be produced and in what quantity and quality. They are no easy bosses. They are full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. They do not care a whit for past merit. As soon as something is offered to them that they like better or that is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors. With them nothing counts more than their own satisfaction."

Which cars will better "satisfy" consumers - those produced by a government-owned and operated company, or those cars produced by a privately-owned company? As long as there are better alternatives to what the government puts out (bet on it!), GM will never be profitable. Therefore, Obama will have to monopolize most of the U.S. auto fleet to truly succeed with GM. Half-way measures won't do. Just ask USPS about their competitive disadvantages in operating against FedEx, UPS, etc. Either get out now, or go all in! I think you already know which option I prefer :)

Obama taking on the Base

Despite the cartoon (sorry, I just couldn't resist) this post actually compliments Obama. This past week, he made a couple of tough decisions which have inflamed the ACLU, other human rights organizations, and much of the liberal base. He has reversed on his promise to release several controversial photos of detainees because, according to Obama, "the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger." It was reported that this was actually the belief of his top military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan who were concerned less about politics and more concerned about saving American lives. They urged the President to reconsider his position, which he did.

The second decision was to restart the Bush-era military tribunals - which Obama halted by executive order during his first week in office. Regarding this policy reversal, Obama said, "These reforms will begin to restore the commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law. This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values." Contrast this statement with something he said on the compaign trail when he described Guantanamo tribunals as "a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict any one of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges."

Amnesty International's Larry Cox is ticked. "President Obama is reinstating the same deeply-flawed military commissions that in June 2008 he called an 'enormous failure.' In one swift move, Obama both backtracks on a major campaign promise to change the way the United States fights terrorism and undermines the nation's core respect for the rule of law by sacrificing due process for political expediency."

So I'm curious, what is really going on here? Was it really 'politically expedient' for Obama to make these decisions? It doesn't seem like it. It seems, based on the leftist critics, that he's departing from campaign promises of transparency, accountability, and a different direction than Bush. I personally applaud President Obama for these two moves. He showed real courage knowing that he would upset the liberal base. This was also a step towards more Presidential maturity. I think he has come to realize that it is one thing to talk big on the campaign trail. But if staying true to some of these campaign promises means endangering American lives in the real world, I'm glad he decided that it was more important to protect those lives than to appease the party base. To me, these developments are encouraging. What do you guys think?

Was Pelosi Dishonest?

I'm sure many of you will be surprised, I'm actually not quite sure on this one. Here's her original statement with the conservative spin:



So are they being unfair? Was it reasonable for her to wait until they come and tell her after they've actually done it before she will give an OK? Was that ex post facto-type entrapment, where she's egging them on by not expressing initial disapproval so they can illegalize it later and then arrest everyone? I'm not quite sure what to make of this to be honest.

Heated Interview

This post doesn't really have a purpose, I just wanted to show you guys this heated interview because it's just intense and I think it's kind of funny:

Carrie Prejean and Liberal Double Standards

I'd like to make a few comments about the recent Miss America controversy. For those who aren't up to speed on it, here's a quick vidcap:



By now you all know I'm conservative, so my feelings on this aren't exactly a mystery. However, in this case my discomfort runs deeper--I think--than mere conservatism. As I mentioned in my comment on the previous post, I think there are common standards of decency that apply across the board, whether you're liberal or conservative. One of the most important ones, I think, is consistency, which I think has been violated by many of the left with a glaring double standard. Here's another video which I think illustrates my point:



So here's my question: can you imagine Martin Luther King trying to make sure that his civil rights movement applied ONLY TO BLACK LIBERALS? To be fair I can understand the uneasy feelings feminists have about the whole pageant scene because it degrades women, but as you saw on that clip that's not what they really have a problem with. If it were the other way around, for example, and a conservative judge wasn't happy with a liberal contestant's answer, this feminist would be outraged. In short, I think it's clear that only women who sympathize with the entire liberal agenda are "worthy" of the benefits of feminism, at least to this particular feminist. So again, isn't that the equivalent of M.L.K. achieving conditional civil rights only for black people who have certain beliefs? Would that even make any sense? And if not, then why would it be any different for feminism? Isn't it just another civil rights issue? I thought part of the reason M.L.K.'s movement caught on was because it harmonized with the Declaration of Independence that you don't have to earn rights because "all men are created equal" and that they are all "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"? If I'm not mistaken, M.L.K. actually quoted the Declaration in his famous "I Have a Dream" speech. Maybe I'm just not supposed to understand it because I'm a conservative, but I still can't see how such a stance can do anything but hurt her cause...am I wrong?

But here's the funny thing about all this: if anything Carrie Prejean has only benefitted from all of this. I think she's actually better off now than if she had actually won the pageant, because nobody would even be talking about her. But thanks to all this controversy, she's on the news all the time now. Anyway, I just think it's ironic that Perez Hilton actually jump-started her career in the process of trying to destroy it. I guess it's like they say, there's no such thing as "bad publicity," though I guess that also applies (unfortunately) to Perez Hilton. For the record, though, I think Prejean came out on top.